Dave Schwartz
07-07-2001, 08:08 PM
http://washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/sports/columns/beyerandrew/A19566-2001Jul4.html
What an awesome article by Beyer. He really nailed it.
It seems obvious (to me) that if raising the take decreases the handle and, hence, the profit, the opposite should (could?) be true. That is, lower the take, handle goes up and make more money. But apparently management doesn't connect the obvious casue/effect relationships between the numbers. Amazing, isn't it?
I recall some economist several years ago stating that the impact of lowering the take is that the (average) player still loses but he plays longer. When he plays longer before going broke he parks his car and pays admission an extra day or two, buys a few more programs, beers and hot dogs, and (most important) has a more rewarding experience.
The Nevada casinos understood that 25 years ago when they began lowering slot takes form the previous 15-30% down to the 97-98% "paybacks" of today. Back then 82% of the "total drop" in a typical casino was table games and the other 18% was slots. Now the trend is flip-flopped, with the 82-18% split going the other way.
When will they learn?
Regards,
Dave Schwartz
What an awesome article by Beyer. He really nailed it.
It seems obvious (to me) that if raising the take decreases the handle and, hence, the profit, the opposite should (could?) be true. That is, lower the take, handle goes up and make more money. But apparently management doesn't connect the obvious casue/effect relationships between the numbers. Amazing, isn't it?
I recall some economist several years ago stating that the impact of lowering the take is that the (average) player still loses but he plays longer. When he plays longer before going broke he parks his car and pays admission an extra day or two, buys a few more programs, beers and hot dogs, and (most important) has a more rewarding experience.
The Nevada casinos understood that 25 years ago when they began lowering slot takes form the previous 15-30% down to the 97-98% "paybacks" of today. Back then 82% of the "total drop" in a typical casino was table games and the other 18% was slots. Now the trend is flip-flopped, with the 82-18% split going the other way.
When will they learn?
Regards,
Dave Schwartz